Gonzalez v. Pacers Running, LLC

Background

Yanilza Gonzalez brought a proposed class action against Pacers Running, LLC. She alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and needs screen-reading software to access website content. According to the complaint, she tried twice to use Pacers Running’s website to buy sneakers but could not do so because the website lacked accessibility features.

Gonzalez asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Pacers Running moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment. Its central argument was that it did not own or operate the website and therefore was not a proper defendant.

Gonzalez sought more time to respond but instead filed an amended complaint that attempted to replace Pacers Running with Farley Enterprises, Inc. The court struck that filing as procedurally improper because Gonzalez had not filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court instructed her to file such a motion if she wanted to substitute Farley Enterprises, but she did not do so. As a result, Pacers Running remained the only defendant, and its motion was unopposed.

Rule 12(b)(6) Issue

The court held that Pacers Running was not entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint legally states a claim. The complaint alleged that Pacers Running owned and operated the website, while Pacers Running denied that allegation. Because ownership and operation presented a factual dispute, the court could not resolve that dispute at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Summary-Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is a decision based on the evidence showing that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial. Pacers Running submitted a declaration and a statement of undisputed facts asserting that:

- Pacers Running did not own or operate the website; - Farley Enterprises owned and operated it; - Pacers Running and Farley Enterprises were legally separate entities; and - Farley Enterprises was Pacers Running’s sole member.

Because Gonzalez did not oppose the motion or controvert Pacers Running’s factual statements with evidence, the court treated those facts as undisputed for purposes of the motion. The court nevertheless considered whether Pacers Running was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ADA Claim

For a Title III ADA claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. The court noted that many courts in the district treat certain public-facing websites as places of public accommodation, and Pacers Running did not dispute that point. But the court found that Farley Enterprises—not Pacers Running—owned and operated the website.

The court also rejected treating the two companies as one integrated business because Gonzalez did not argue or establish the required facts concerning their operations, labor-relations control, management, and ownership or financial control. The court therefore held that Pacers Running was not a proper defendant for the ADA claim.

New York Claims

The court reached the same result on the claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Those laws can impose liability on specified people or entities connected to a place of public accommodation, including an owner, franchisor, franchisee, lessor, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee. Gonzalez alleged only that Pacers Running owned and operated the website and did not allege or argue another basis for liability.

Disposition

The court granted Pacers Running’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Gonzalez’s complaint without prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the relevant motions, and closed the case.